• Hello!

    Either you have not registered on this site yet, or you are registered but have not logged in. In either case, you will not be able to use the full functionality of this site until you have registered, and then logged in after your registration has been approved.

    Registration is FREE, so please register so you can participate instead of remaining a lurker....

    Please be certain that the location field is correctly filled out when you register. All registrations that appear to be bogus will be rejected. Which means that if your location field does NOT match the actual location of your registration IP address, then your registration will be rejected.

    Sorry about the strictness of this requirement, but it is necessary to block spammers and scammers at the door as much as possible.

Shhh! The snake may hear you

Nanci

Alien Lover
http://www.anapsid.org/torrey.html

John Carson

Can snakes hear, you ask?
A few decades ago the answer was no, for - obviously - snakes don't have external ears. And any way, snakes don't appear to respond to loud noises. Further support for this view is found in some current zoology texts, which still report that snakes lack the sense of hearing. But research begun about 35 years ago, especially the extensive investigations over many years by E.G. Wever and associates at Princeton University, has shown that snakes have a hearing capability(at least in an electrophysiological sense) comparable to that of lizards.

This should not be too surprising, for snakes and lizards share some common features and are thought to have common ancestors.

So how can a snake hear, lacking external ears? By having equivalent structures on each side of its head. The skin and muscle tissue on each side of the head cover a loosely suspended bone, called the quadrate, which undergoes small displacements in response to airborne sound. The quadrate motion is transferred by intermediate structures to the cochlea, which produces electrical signals on its hair cells that correlate with the airborne sounds (within a range of intensity and frequency determined by the ear system) and are transferred to the brain.

Cochlear signals are present in functioning ears of all classes of vertebrates from fish to mammals, while animals that are congenitally deaf produce no such signals, so their presence in response to sound is taken as an indication of the hearing sense. Wever and co-workers [1] developed techniques to measure the hair-cell signals in lizards, snakes, and amphibians, which involved anesthetizing the specimen, inserting a very thin wire probe into contact with a hair cell, and measuring the acoustic signal level needed to produce a specified hair-cell signal (typically 0.1 microvolt). Various experiments were performed to demonstrate that the hair-cell signals were in direct response to airborne sound and not to mechanical vibrations from the medium on which the specimens were placed.

According to Porter [2], the auditory response of snakes in the range of 200 to 300 Hz is superior to that of cats. Hartline and Campbell [3] investigated the transmission of airborne sound through the snake's skin and lung into the inner ear. Wever's results show that this type of transmission, called the somatic mode, is much reduced compared to that through the skin to the quadrate, which is the main mode of hearing.

How are the cochlear responses to be interpreted? Wever points out that it is often difficult to determine the role of hearing in lower forms such as reptiles. It is possible that snakes make less use of the auditory sense than other animals. He notes that the maximum sensitivity occurs in the frequency range of noise made by movements of large animals, so detection of such sounds could function as a warning to snakes to be motionless, a common defensive action with animals. (Although not discussed in the references I was able to check, there is also the question of how the cochlear signals are used in the snake brain. Is it possible that the ability to process this information has been or is being lost?) So the next time you meet a snake on the Reserve trails, be careful what you say to it, for the snake may hear you.
 
This reminds me of an episode of Jeff Corwin's show in which he places a rattlesnake between two cell phones--one is set on vibrate, and the other on ring. I can't find the video online (Animal Planet's lawyers appear to have been unleashed on YouTube), but here's an excerpt from a Larry King interview that recounts it:

KING: We're back with the wonderful Jeff Corwin. Before we meet our next creature, tell me about this rattlesnake and two cell phones.

CORWIN: Well this was an experiment I wanted to prove and show how these animals are plugged into their environment. You know, Corwin's quest is about unraveling natural mysteries. Animal Planet is about connecting people with animals. So we try to do it with a rattlesnake.

KING: And we're going to show it.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

CORWIN: But this investigation into sound, I'm going to need, hmm, let's see. One rattlesnake. And two cell phones. One set to ring. The other to vibrate. OK, let's give it a try. First, the ringing. See that, guys? Nothing. But. Look at that. Look at that. Check out the snake. He is reacting to the vibrating phone. He's actually sliding over to the phone. He's tasting the phone that's vibrating.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CORWIN: What do you think of that. Isn't that cool?

KING: That's wild.

CORWIN: Yes. Basically, what he's doing, he is deaf, he has no external ear openings. He's actually sensing the vibrations that come through the ground. And that's just one part of that show. Basically, it's about how animals use sound. So for that one episode, we go from Florida to these creatures, to Africa to vervet monkeys to tell that story.

Source: http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0507/26/lkl.01.html

Perhaps the cell phone ring doesn't correspond to the frequency indicated in Nanci's source?
 
Well, when you consider that "hearing" sound is nothing more than the act of interpreting vibration, the statement that snakes are "deaf, but they feel vibrations" is pretty self-defeating. Hearing is merely feeling the vibrations in the airwaves of the sound. Just because it doesn't fit the definition of HUMAN hearing, doesn't mean it isn't hearing. Whose to say that various wavelengths of sound vibrations are felt in different ways by snakes, and they are reacting to THAT rather than the actual vibration?

I can "hear" my phone vibrating, just as muchas I can hear it ringing. It is a different wavelength and a different volume, but it doesn't change the fact that the vibration of the phone cause a humanly audible sound just as the ringing does. They are different wavelengths of vibration causing different reactions from different sense and different species.

What I mean is, if audible sound vibrates air and causes a specific wavelength that can be heard by humans, who's to say that the exact same sound that we hear through the air vibrations doesn't cause vibrations through other materials, such as glass, water, or earth, that while imperceptible to us, are "heard" by other species of animal? It's pretty arrogant to define every aspect of animal behavior in human terms. We can't hear a majority of the sounds made by animals like whales, dolphins, elephants, cats, and digs. Yet we know that they can hear. We also know that they hear alot of stuff that they simply don't respond to.

Not responding to stimuli and not percieving the same stimuli are NOT the same thing. Saying that because an animal does not respond to a specific stimulus means it doesn't KNOW of the stimulus is pretty ignorant. They may very well hear, and simply not care. Hearing a phone ring doesn't instigate a feeding response, or mimic the sound of a struggling piece of prey. Vibrations of a phone may do just that. So perhaps the snake is repsonding to a stimulation that has resulted in food or danger in the past, and simply ignoring the ringing sound which has never created reason for alarm or intrigue in it's existence.

Again, just because an animal doesn't respond to stimulation doesn't mean it is ignorant of it's existence.

New research will bring about new information. Everything that we KNOW today, may be false in the future. The reality is, it is impossible to know anything is 100% true, until is proven to be 100% NOT true. We cannot know what is, we can only know what is not. Until we know what is NOT true, we are merely assuming it to be real.

:crazy02: :crazy02: :grin01:

P.S.--I'm just playing devil's advocate for a little bit. It's merely a different way to look at the situation, whether you agree with it or not...
 
Back
Top